It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Being a Bible thumper is counter-intuitive

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Let me start by saying I do believe that there is some form of creator(christian leaning), so dont start flaming me as some atheist a$$ hole. So.... I find it strange when I have a conversation with a Bible thumper, that they cant wrap their minds around anything new age'ish, cutting edge technology or anything that has to do with new theoretical science ie extra dimentions, quatum physics and the like. Bible thumping is counter intuitive to me becuz you have to be VERY open minded to TRULY believe some of the wild stories that are portrayed in the Bible. Its like they beleive any non senseicle thing the Bible says but are completly closed minded to new info about the world we live in. Bible thumpers feel free to weigh in on why open mindedness stops after the last chapter of the Bible. And dont say cuz its the true word of God, cuz thats just adding to the close mindedness.




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


You wrote:

["So.... I find it strange when I have a conversation with a Bible thumper, that they cant wrap their minds around anything new age'ish, cutting edge technology or anything that has to do with new theoretical science ie extra dimentions, quatum physics and the like."]

My own recent experience on ATS is, that there's an increasing amount of new-age-but-mainly-christian-mish-mash of syncretistic religion around, which is also the case with 'quantum-religionists'. Whereas the old-timers with endless bible-verse citations and one-way sermons slowly are disappearing.

Which for me makes things easier, as I know something about modern physics and generally am terminally bored by bible-scholastic.

But the essential message, motive and method is the same as always: Missionary pushing of absolute doctrines, disregarding the (for missionaries) minor detail of evidence, validation etc.

The mindset of missionaries will ever be the same. Only the wrapping changes.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


Just a heads up, friend - I'm a bible-believing christian, but I don't believe it's all 'spiritual' or ethereal weirdness.

I'm very open to the idea of extra dimensions (I believe the 'spiritual' is better perceived as inter/extra-dimensional, including angels/demons/ETs, shadow people, and so forth) and am a big fan of quantum physics ("the secret") as I believe pertains to Jesus' words on faith, the placebo effect and various things witness so far in the quantum realm (dual-slit, entanglement, and so on).

Very interesting stuff, and I like how it seems to be moving the direction of dealing with people always astounded that anyone can believe in 'miracles' and other acts of god - given current rates in development, I think we'll find the extraordinary is actually mundane, as we are merely ignorant children.

Be well.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Praetorius- Im completely with ya on that. When I have those conversations, I try to explain to "said thumper" that a alot of new science supports the ideas in the bible, but in a more logical way than just the blind faith mentality. I found God THROUGH science and I want to show other followers of our creator that they should activly search God, not just be satisfied with what the Bible says. There is so much more to learn than what "BC" knowledge and technology can provide. It pains me to see otherwise VERY inteligent people dismiss ideas supporting their own beliefs just becuz it doesnt say that in a 2000 y/o book.
edit on 23-5-2011 by Talltexxxan because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2011 by Talltexxxan because: grammer



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


Indeed, tall one. They would do well to remember first off "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and you can add to that all sorts of other fun that might become involved when looking at dimensional and quantum options that might not even require 'technology'.

I have to admit a bit of enjoyment when I have discussions like this with people and they get all offended "So you think god's an ALIEN??"..."No...I think aliens are spiritual, if you want to call it that, and yes god is alien to our understanding, although he's not biological or from another planet."

As always, I have to say I could be entirely wrong about everything, but I have a hard time understanding why it can't all come together...the stories can all be based in truth and memory, instead of some cultural delusion. It ties up ongoing UFO phenomena and pretty much everything else quite nicely, in my humble opinion.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


There are many open-minded Christians. Even those who strongly believe in the bible can be open-minded. I have talked with them.

But the 'bible thumpers' you describe in your post are not open-minded. Just because they believe a fantastical and extraordinary story doesn't mean they do so because they're 'open-minded'. In fact, if that's all they believe and snap their minds closed at the first sign of something not mentioned in the bible, that illustrates that they are probably, indeed, closed-minded.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I feel somtimes that Im the only one that can see that nearly every religon of the world has supporting science behind them, yet neither religon or science wants to get off their dang self rightous high horse and just see that they talking about the same D*MN thing. ugh! Its like when I ask "thumper",
Question: okay so when you die you will go to heaven?
Answer: yes
Q
kay, so how do "you" get to heaven
A:well, my soul goes there.
Q so you believe there is a part of you that is not physical that will continue on? (entanglement)
Q: where is heaven? (this is when the conversation goes south)
A: uhhhh...... uhhh.... im not sure.
This is the part where I try and tell them about alternate dimensions and universes. and them for some reason their brain locks up and they cant/wont see the similarites.
Its just frustrating.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


I agree with you. I don't "thump" other works of fiction like Harry Potter or Huckleberry Finn. Why am i so angry at this God? Perhaps i'm not sure whether he's the protagonist or the antagonist.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
Let me start by saying I do believe that there is some form of creator(christian leaning), so dont start flaming me as some atheist a$$ hole. So.... I find it strange when I have a conversation with a Bible thumper, that they cant wrap their minds around anything new age'ish


Because there is nothing "New" about the New Age dogma. It's satan's lie from the garden repackaged for the 20th century and beyond. (You can be gods)


, cutting edge technology or anything that has to do with new theoretical science ie extra dimentions, quatum physics and the like.


Absurd! The more one knows about the cutting edge of physics the easier Genesis chapter 1 reads!!! In fact, it's quite amusing that the Hebrew sage Nachmanades concluded in the 13th century after careful study of Genesis that we live in at least 10 dimensions, 4 that are "knowable" and 6 that are "unknowable" to use his vernacular. the funny part is it took atom smashers and billions of dollars for modern scientists to discover what this Hebrew sage did by just doing his homework in Genesis.



Bible thumping is counter intuitive to me becuz you have to be VERY open minded to TRULY believe some of the wild stories that are portrayed in the Bible. Its like they beleive any non senseicle thing the Bible says but are completly closed minded to new info about the world we live in. Bible thumpers feel free to weigh in on why open mindedness stops after the last chapter of the Bible. And dont say cuz its the true word of God, cuz thats just adding to the close mindedness.


I don't agree with anything you've asserted. The more one knows about the cutting edge of quantum mechanics, the nature of light, M Theory, String Theory, et cetra the easier Genesis reads. I do not deny UFOs at all and think they will be the "great deception" spoken of in Revelation. Stanton Friedman the top UFO researcher in the world has said that the UFO phenomena appears to be "demonic" in nature as well as "hyper-dimensional;" and not inter-planetary. And Mr. Friedman is not a Christian.


edit on 23-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Sorry, that slipped...

Kidding!
As I mentioned on, I believe, your thread the other day, for me it's a case of perspective to the point of being alien and above good/evil or perceived morality, along the lines of us interacting with animals and the natural world.

Have a good day, friend.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Hahaha


Epic, thanks comrade.

I hope you're suggesting i'm like Charlie. "shunnn the non-believer"

edit on 23/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



Hahaha

Epic, thanks comrade.

But of course - I would much rather we all laugh together as compared to scream at one another, or anything approaching that. All ways so much debate, and life is so short... *sigh*


I hope you're suggesting i'm like Charlie. "shunnn the non-believer"

Yessir - and I'm like one of those silly others who makes his own reality a little bit every day.


Have a good one.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Noturtypical.
Your name says it all. Your not the typical.
we are saying the same thing. I belive that the more science you know the easier it is to understand the bible. But it has just been my experience that most jesus freaks dont like the science behind it all and wud rather just blindly believe than to actually have a closer relationship with the creator by learning more. thats all im sayin. Im not saying that every christian is a close minded person, I know their not. I guess its just the people in my life refuse to look any where near the science direction.
~much love~



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And on the same foundation of dogma against dogma, your statement where you meet a dogma with a dogma...

Quote: ["Because there is nothing "New" about the New Age dogma. It's satan's lie from the garden repackaged for the 20th century and beyond. (You can be gods)"]

Yours can be seen as a counter-propagandistic lie based on dogma. I could theoretically add a third one and from gnostic direction say: "Ofcourse we're all gods, but Pauline christianity hates that truth and suppresses it".

That you, as practically always, have your own way of presenting 'evidence' for your special dogmas through a highly (but undefined) personal system, manifests here...

Quote: ["Absurd! The more one knows about the cutting edge of physics the easier Genesis chapter 1 reads!!!"]

Strange, I've had theoretical physics as a great interest of mine for years, and the more I learn, the more nonsense-like does genesis 1 appear to me.

Quote: [" In fact, it's quite amusing that the Hebrew sage Nachmanades concluded in the 13th century after careful study of Genesis that we live in at least 10 dimensions, 4 that are "knowable" and 6 that are "unknowable" to use his vernacular. the funny part is it took atom smashers and billions of dollars for modern scientists to discover what this Hebrew sage did by just doing his homework in Genesis."]

I have on several former occasions been exposed to your special 'methodology' (as implied above), but in this case I need some more information, before I can relate to what you write. Is 'Nachmanades' spelled correctly, and is his prophet Gerald Schroeder? I ask about the last, because you mostly serve pre-digested 'authority' arguments from other people.

Quote: ["Stanton Friedman the top UFO researcher in the world has said that the UFO phenomena appears to be "demonic" in nature as well as "hyper-dimensional;" and not inter-planetary. And Mr. Friedman is not a Christian."]

Source please. You have e.g. formerly cited the scientist Paul Davies out of context, in a way completely incompatible with Davies' own stances. (It's a quite a while ago, and I don't won't to waste time searching for it, while you must have the above citation close at hand).



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Two quick questions..

Who is Paul Davies?

Who is Gerald Shroeder?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Paul Davies is a scientist writing popular-science on astro-physics and theoretical physics. You cited him once in an answer to Madness (MIMS) on a thread with posts on creationist versions of science.

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with a strong inclination towards an adaption of science towards judeo-christianity (and according to what I read sometimes the other way round).

He has written on someone with a name very close to what you mentioned in your recent post. I was curious of more details on this, as I also am interested in any reasonable relations/similarities between theology, metaphysics and science.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Paul Davies is a scientist writing popular-science on astro-physics and theoretical physics. You cited him once in an answer to Madness (MIMS) on a thread with posts on creationist versions of science.

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with a strong inclination towards an adaption of science towards judeo-christianity (and according to what I read sometimes the other way round).

He has written on someone with a name very close to what you mentioned in your recent post. I was curious of more details on this, as I also am interested in any reasonable relations/similarities between theology, metaphysics and science.



I don't recall the Paul Davies post or reference. I'm also not familiar with his work. My linking or quoting him must have come from a Goggle search, right now I am not remembering the post/reference. It could have come from him being a colleague of Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist, Colorado University. And I have no idea who Gerald Shroeder is or if he was the first to report on Nachmanades or not. I learned of his proclamations on Genesis from a Chuck Missler commentary on Genesis. Chuck could have got his information from Mr. Shroeder, I have no idea. I also don't know if that's the correct spelling or not, I'm remembering the name from the commentary.

Okay, after researching this the man I did not spell his name exactly right, it is "Ramban Nachmanides", he was a Hebrew sage/mystic Kabbalist and his claims are in his 5 volume commentary on the Torah. Found here:

Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah (5 Vol. Set) H/C

Not sure if there is an online or PDF version to view.


He has written on someone with a name very close to what you mentioned in your recent post. I was curious of more details on this, as I also am interested in any reasonable relations/similarities between theology, metaphysics and science.


I feel you are genuine and you've been civil so far so I'd love to share my favorite Biblical commentator. It's quite a long series to watch, so it will take some time. The Missler videos on Physics, Nature of Light, etc cetra is from his exegetical Genesis Commentary. They are quite long, I believe he has 10 hours of Commentary on the first week of creation alone. Anyways, the journey starts here:


Session 1:

01 - The Nature of Reality (Gen Ch 1.1) Introduction Clip 1

Session 2 begins here:

02 - The Nature of Light Chuck Missler (Ch 1 2-5) Day One Clip 1

Session 3 begins here:

03 - Science and Creation Chuck Missler (Ch 1 6-8) Day Two Clip 1

Session 4 begins here:

04 - God's Science of Life Chuck Missler (Ch 1 9-13) Day Three Clip 1

Session 5 begins here:

05 - Chuck Missler Ch 1 14 19 Day Four Clip 1

Session 6 begins here:

Session 06 Chuck Missler Ch 1 20 23 Day Five Part 1

Session 7 begins here:

Session 07 Chuck Missler Ch 1 24 31 Day Six 1



Don't let Madness know I've linked Missler, he'll go ballistic. I know you don't believe any of the Creationist's claims, but others may wish to view the background data that I gave my statements from, and if you can stomach the references to God there are some good references to some fantastic cutting-edge science and even some information not taught in college courses.

At any rate, enjoy everyone.
edit on 24-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
Noturtypical.
Your name says it all. Your not the typical.
we are saying the same thing. I belive that the more science you know the easier it is to understand the bible. But it has just been my experience that most jesus freaks dont like the science behind it all and wud rather just blindly believe than to actually have a closer relationship with the creator by learning more. thats all im sayin. Im not saying that every christian is a close minded person, I know their not. I guess its just the people in my life refuse to look any where near the science direction.
~much love~


I appreciate the kind words, thank you. Glad to meet you, we share the same intrigue for science in general, Physics in particular.

I have linked on of my favorite Biblical commentators, I think you will enjoy his work if you are already not familiar.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Quote:

["I don't recall the Paul Davies post or reference. I'm also not familiar with his work. My linking or quoting him must have come from a Goggle search, right now I am not remembering the post/reference."]

It's not a major issue for me. My memory may even have failed me, as I don't have a mental index on every single post, I've read.

Quote: ["Okay, after researching this the man I did not spell his name exactly right, it is "Ramban Nachmanides", he was a Hebrew sage/mystic Kabbalist and his claims are in his 5 volume commentary on the Torah."]

Spelling-errors happen all the time (not least to me). The main thing is the essential message; so I just wanted to be sure, that we were talking about the same person. Nachmanides I already found and took a cursory glance at.

Quote: ["I feel you are genuine and you've been civil so far so I'd love to share my favorite Biblical commentator."]

The reciprocial civility suits me fine, but I don't have the technical possibilities of watching internet-videos. Neither do I have the time nor interest in hour-long information. I prefer the personally presented versions/interpretations/positions, because after all, I'm debating with whoever is at the other end of the internet, not the sources they refer to.

This is ofcourse not to be taken as a complete rejection of sources as such, there are many specialist opinions etc of value, which is outside the scope of a layperson. But eventually we all have to relate to and evaluate such specialist information. Blind faith in authority isn't my cup of tea.

Quote: ["Don't let Madness know I've linked Missler, he'll go ballistic."]

I enjoy, when people introduce an element of humour. Madness will probably read the quote above, but I got your implied witticism.

In any case I'm not identical twins with Madness, though I share his insistence on following objective procedure, when objectivity is claimed to be included in a debate-frame.

Quote: ["I know you don't believe any of the Creationist's claims,"]

This definitely wouldn't prevent me from informing myself on creationist positions, so while I usually ignore both atheist and theist spokes-persons, I'll make an excepting and take a look at the person you recommended. Presently I'm mundanely busy, so it may take a short while though.

Quote: [" and if you can stomach the references to God...."]

I can stomach quite a few things, if they aren't thrown at me (or generally) as doctrinal absolutes being THE exclusive truth, which everybody MUST acknowledge. You would probably be surprised of the amount of inconsistencies and high weirdiosity in my private life. I just don't turn them into pseudo-objective general positions.

Quote continued: ["...... there are some good references to some fantastic cutting-edge science and even some information not taught in college courses."]

I'm not into any p*ssing contest, but I've been at that 'cutting edge' (not only in science) for 45 years, so it's unavoidable, that I've picked up a few things along the road; culminating in my present position of philosophical scepticism and 'relative realities' (there are other names for these, I don't care so much about labels, as long as they are instructive).

This information about me could be of use to you, when you address me, as it explains both my rather staunch resistance to 'absolutes' and also the methodology I use.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



The reciprocial civility suits me fine, but I don't have the technical possibilities of watching internet-videos. Neither do I have the time nor interest in hour-long information. I prefer the personally presented versions/interpretations/positions, because after all, I'm debating with whoever is at the other end of the internet, not the sources they refer to.


Oh that's alright mate, I can understand your technical difficulties.

Not really interested in debating 8 hours of video. lol

The links are there for others to view if they are interested.
edit on 25-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join